April 6, 2026 · Ohio Controlling Board · 4,895 words · 9 speakers · 150 segments
Senator Serino? Here.
Senator Wilkin? Yes.
Senator Ingram? Here.
Representative Stewart? Here.
Representative Davila? Present.
Representative Gerald? Here. All right. The minutes of the previous meeting have been distributed.
Is there a motion to approve the minutes?
So moved.
Moved by Senator Serino. Do we have a second?
Second.
Second by Senator Wilkin. Are there any objections?
No.
Wow.
seconded by Senator Ingram. Without objection, the minutes are approved. All right, we have one update to today's agenda. Item number 30 from the Department of Administrative Services was amended to include appropriation increase for only FY 2026. And today we do have a late agenda addition from the Department of Health. As a reminder to the board members, the department will first request the item be added to the agenda. We'll hold a vote on the addition to the agenda. If the item is added to the agenda, there will be the opportunity to hold the request for questions, as with any other item. Are there any questions regarding the process? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to the request from the Department of Health.
Members of the controlling board, my name is Paul Marigas. I'm with the Ohio Department of Health here to provide you a little bit of background on why this is an emergency add-on for today's meeting. Basically, we receive federal money from the Medicaid and Medicare services from the federal level, roughly about $202 million per year. and we're in the process of trying to get the money out the door so we can look to improve services at the rural health level. We're looking at access to care. We're looking at infrastructure needs. And the sooner we can put this out the door, the better and quicker way we'll be able to start seeing improvements at the rural health at the local levels. Any questions?
Seeing none, are there any objections to this item being added to the agenda? Hearing no objection, the item has been added to the agenda.
Thank you.
Moving on, we will now poll the members for holds.
Senator Serino. Thank you, Chair. I would like to hold 54 and the recently added 68. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman. Item 30. Thank you.
Senator Ingram. Item 46, 54, 55, 66, and now 68. Thank you.
Representative Stewart. Just 48, please.
Pardon me, 48?
48.
Thank you.
Representative DeVilla? Thanks, Mr. President. No holds today.
Thank you. Representative Jerrolds?
No holds. Thank you. Got it.
All right. Representatives for agencies of approve requests are free to leave quickly and quietly. Do you want to read the holds first? Okay, we're going to read the holds. Item number 30, the Department of Administrative Services. Item 46, the Department of Health. Item 48, the Department of Transportation. Items 54 and 55, the Environmental Protection Agency. Item 66, the State Racing Commission. and item 68, the Department of Health. All right. Okay. All items not held, you're free to leave. 30 was first. You guys know how to clear a room. All right, moving on to our first held item, DAS 0105292, item 30, Department of Administrative Services.
Allie Bocello, Associate Legal Counsel and Chief Legislative Officer for DAS.
Representative Wilkin.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for being here, Ms. Spuccello. We've discussed this on a couple of occasions now. So first thing I do want to say, I appreciate you working with us on amending this. Because frankly, had it not been amended, I made clear that I would have been a hold and a no. I will be a yes on this with the amendment. But not as much of a question, but give you the opportunity to respond as well. You know, there's I think there's times we have to take a look at things and just see exactly where we are and how if we can possibly be more efficient. And I think this is one of those areas where we have a fairly large amount of fleet vehicles throughout the state that can be looked at. And maybe we can do better. Maybe we can't. But until we look at it, it's kind of the reason that you see lots of people up here, my colleagues from the House as well over here on the Senate side, frown and groan when we see the waivers. Because lots of times now we're saying now we don't know. And the reasons behind those vary widely. But as I said, more than anything, I appreciate you working with me on this issue and look forward on working on it even more as we move forward. Mr. President, I want to give her an opportunity to respond if it's okay with you.
Certainly.
Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Wilkin, we appreciate you working with us on this request. We are always happy to continue conversations. We are always looking at ways that we can make sure our programs are the most efficient and safe taxpayer dollars. We're happy to continue those conversations.
Anything further, Senator? And Senator Ingram?
I just have a question that's probably off from somewhere. In regard to your purchasing new vehicles, what does the state do with their old vehicles once they get rid of them? Through the president, Senator Ingram, we participate in a surplus sale,
so we typically do a one-in, one-out. If an agency is looking at purchasing a new vehicle, we will sell the old vehicle through a surplus sale.
Thank you, Mr. President. To an agency within the state or someone else?
Through the president. We use a platform called GovDeals where members of the public can bid and participate in an auction sale.
Follow-up center? Thank you, Mr. President. I'm only asking this because, believe it or not, I just got asked this question over the weekend in regard to fleets that are at some of our school districts that have high maintenance costs. cost, and of course their vehicles are probably considerably older than the state ones, so I'm wondering if there is some sort of, other than them going to the platform that everybody can go to, that the state has set up that these public entities can possibly participate separately. I mean, almost like we do our charter schools. If we get rid of a building, we have to offer it first to a charter school before we can
offer it on an auction. So is anything like that happen now?
Through the President, Senator Ingram, I believe that is an option.
I'd be happy to follow up with your office with additional information.
Thank you. I'd appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Anything further, Senator?
No, that's good. Thank you.
Any other questions? Any objections to this item? Hearing none, the item is approved. Okay our next held item is number 46 Department of Health
Good afternoon. My name is James Hodge. I'm the Chief of Healthcare Compliance with the Ohio Department of Health.
Thank you. Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President. Just help me with what this is going to do.
Okay. Through the President to the Senator. This is a request that occurred because of the federal shutdown last fall. So CMS had indicated to the department and actually all states that they could no longer do the federal certification work in nursing homes and other facility types. As a result, we had to shift our work to more state licensure work, and as a result, we needed to expend those state dollars. Those state dollars are what we normally use for the federal match for CMS. and so we're requesting the $1.1 million in order to expend all of the federal funds by the end of the fiscal year.
Follow-up, Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President. So my concern is that though the federal dollars are not there, this will cover inspections that already need to be done by the state, and we will be doing them in-house, or what's the difference?
Through the president, so we have, We are the state survey agency for Medicare and Medicaid, and we do some certification-only surveys. We do a combination of certification and licensure, then we do licensure-only surveys. These are surveys that are done based upon either complaint or based upon them having to be done on an annual basis in order to verify compliance and the health and safety of the residents. So we use these dollars to match the federal dollars when we're doing both state and federal work.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for that. So do we have a backlog of inspections and licensures or do you have complaints that haven't been addressed yet or?
Through the president. So normally we focus on the complaints because they're reactionary. Something has occurred and we need to go look at those quickly. As a result, based upon our workload, we are behind on some of our annual surveys and some of our facility types. However, we have refocused our efforts based upon the nursing home task force recommendations to circle back towards annuals and prioritize them. The work that we were doing during the shutdown was in state-licensed-only residential care facilities, some other facility types that allowed us to get caught up in those areas. The nursing home area, a couple of other recertification areas, we still are behind. But this will allow us to stay focused on those recertification surveys so that we can get closer to being caught up.
Senator?
Thank you. Now, is this based on the more recent task force recommendations, or are these for the ones from a couple of years ago?
They're from a couple of years ago, 2022 or 2023, I believe.
Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions? Seeing none, are there any objections to the item? Hearing no objections, the item is approved. Thank you.
Thank you.
Next item is number 48, Department of Transportation.
Greg Vergametti with the Ohio Department of Transportation.
Representative Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks for being here. My understanding is this is a grant that we are doing with North Carolina State University to assess new technologies to promote driver awareness of ODOT work zones. I guess the main question is, we have a whole lot of public universities in Ohio. Why do we have to go to North Carolina to get this done?
Controlling by President DeSantis, Representative Stewart, thank you for that question. This proposal, as you said, is for some research into traffic safety. In our work zones, top priority for ODOT is safety. We did release the RFP for 37 days. We did receive four proposals. Three of them were from out-of-state universities and one from an Ohio-based company. After reviewing each of the proposals, North Carolina State had the best work plan and also the lowest cost, and they did partner with Ohio University for this research going forward.
Follow-up.
Yes? So I guess the main question then is, in those 37 days, is it that our Ohio universities can't do the work, are uninterested in doing the work, or are they not aware in those 37 days that right hand and left hand maybe need to get together? I mean, were they aware of this grant and said no, or do they just not do the work? I struggle with the idea that with as many public universities as we have, nobody wants this grant money to do this work.
Controlling for President DeSantis, Representative Stewart, again, thank you for that question. It's my understanding that our ODOT research, which is in our statewide planning office, does do work with most of the universities here in Ohio. and we would prefer to keep all of our contracts here in the state. I think just for this proposal, we did only receive four proposals in that 37 days. It is my understanding that the universities were aware of this proposal.
Any other questions? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Hearing none, the item is approved.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is item 54, Environmental Protection Agency.
Andrew Smith, Deputy Director at Ohio EPA.
Thank you. Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President. Help me with this. And I know that there was a settlement, but walk through it for me.
Sure. So this is the president to the senator. This is surrounding the Washington Works facility. It's a DuPont facility in Parkersburg, West Virginia, down along the border near Washington County. This has been an ongoing issue in the past with PFAS, Forever Chemicals Contamination. In 2018, then Attorney General Mike DeWine filed a state lawsuit against the company for PFAS contamination in the area. This went on until 2023, December of 2023. They entered into a settlement agreement with the state for $110 million. It has been being litigated. It was being litigated, appealed, not the settlement itself, but parties who wanted to be a part of the settlement. Those appeals are now complete, and we've started receiving some of those funds. In January of this year, we received a $65 million piece of the settlement. we expect to receive an additional $20 million more, so the total settlement would be $85 million. Part of the settlement agreement requires the settlement funds to go to remediation efforts for the Washington Works facility and the surrounding area, so 80% of those funds, which will be roughly $68 million total, and that's what these projects are currently on this request. 16% of the funds should go to address AFFF firefighter film, And then 4% will go to remediation efforts for natural resources damages. And so that money we are currently waiting on, and once we receive that, we'll be making a separate controlling board request.
Follow-up, Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President. And since we then are now responsible for all of that remediation, how much is it actually going to cost?
So we are receiving $65 billion. we have received $65 million, and we're expected to receive another 20 more. It's just for that Washington Works facility addressing the PFAS contamination. We have worked with communities on identifying this, and these communities are addressing those $65 million. There other PFAS contamination in the area and across the state that we have to work on and continue to work on as an agency with US EPA on changing standards and working forward with them
Senator.
Thank you, Mr. President. So therefore, the $65 million is not just for the Washington Works, it's for other contamination that's in other parts of the state. Or is that going to cost us that for the remediation at Washington with the DuPont Washington Works?
Through the president, to the senator. This $65 million is just to address PFAS contamination related to the Washington Works facility.
So is that how much it's going to cost?
Through the president, to the chair, no. Likely more work is going to be needed in the area as well. This is just from the settlement reached with the state. There is ongoing federal with U.S. EPA work being done as well in the region and with the facility as well.
Thank you, Mr. President. And that's what I'm trying to get to, is that are we going to spend $65 million in remediation at DuPont Washington Park, or are we going to actually spend money elsewhere? And if that's the case, if that's what it cost us, then what was the purpose of the settlement?
So it's not going to cost that much. Those dollars are being used in other places. Through the president to the senator, the court ordered the settlement requires this money to be spent on remediation efforts. for the Washington Works facility. Based off our research, this is what we have found. These are the communities with the highest levels that we have found, the other communities with lower levels of public water systems in the area. So we will have to continue working on that. But this 65 million is joined just for the Washington Works facility.
Thank you.
Senator Serino.
Thank you, President. Excuse me. Thanks for testifying today. Two questions, really. Just maybe to follow up on Senator Ingram, her question. So the $110 million is the total compensation that the state was able to get
from DuPont for any exposure to the Forever Chemicals? Through the president, to the senator? Yes, just for the settlement, yes. Okay. And so tell me, technically,
what is the remediation for this kind of exposure in drinking water, in the environment, in general. What exactly do you do to remediate the impact of this chemical?
Through the President and the Senator, there are multiple ways in which we remediate this, one of which is just finding a new drinking water source, a new well, potentially. Others is regionalization, tapping into surrounding public water systems who have treatment available or are not affected by the PFAS. And a third is to actually apply PFAS treatments to the public water system for treatment. That is using carbon, for example, to filter out the PFAS, other types of filters as well at the raw water level as it's being treated to ensure that PFAS is removed from the drinking water.
Please. Yeah, thank you. So when the lawsuit was settled and the $110 million number came up here, Was that number based upon what we believe, the Ohio EPA believed, all of this remediation, kind of to get us back to normal, would cost us to do it? Or was that just a figure that was negotiated out based on dollars and cents?
Through the President and the Senator. I'll have to check on that and get back to you. I wasn't part of the settlement negotiations, so I don't know how they reached that number. But I can ask our legal counsel and follow up with the Attorney General's Office to get more information for you.
Okay. Thank you.
Follow-up, Senator. No. Any further questions? Representative Gerald.
Thank you, Mr. President. I just have probably one question. And so as we think about the remediation process, what is the timeline to go from where we are currently to ultimately, as was mentioned, to a point where this didn't even occur in the first place in that community? Like, how long will it take to remediate and actually get us back to normal?
Through the president, to the representative, that's going to be a tough question to answer. We are continually doing testing. We have tested almost 1,500 public water systems across the state since 2019 with our PFAS action plans to understand what's going on across the state, and not only in that area, but across the state as well. Well, these, this request is just the communities who are impacted the most by PFAS in the area. There are other PFAS detections that are lower, as well as new federal standards coming down by US EPA, that it's going to lower that threshold that we're going to have to address here going into 2027 as well. So I can't answer that for you because we're still learning and we're still understanding. We're still detecting and we're still trying to get that information.
And that's stuff that we will share with both the House and Senate members as we adapt to these new oncoming – incoming federal standards. Just a follow-up? Thank you. And so to piggyback on the question that was mentioned as well by the senator, is it of your opinion that the money that we received in the settlement, is it sufficient enough in terms of us actually addressing this issue? Like, is the money that we received going to actually, five years from now, when we analyze this water, when we analyze the community, will it be enough where we actually see some real tangible benefit to that community?
Through the president, to the representative, I have been down to meet with the public water systems across this region who are affected by this over half a dozen times over the last couple years to personally meet with them to organize these plans. This proposal is going to give over 75,000 Ohioans access to clean, safe drinking water when it comes to forever chemicals.
One more question. I promise I'm done. So for the families that were afflicted, I was a lead poison survivor. This is really personal for me. will there be some sort of in the plans annual testing for children, ensuring, making sure that we are not, as we're thinking about the infrastructure and healing that.
Thank you. I'm sure that all needs are being met by.
Thank you.
Any further questions? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Hearing none, the item is approved. Next item is 55, Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you, Mr. President.
I am just looking at this, and because we're taking, increasing the appropriation from two different funds in both years, help me with what we're getting to with the hazardous waste facility management out of fund 530, which is a 2.1 and 26 and 2.6 and 27, and then of course out of...
that we received in 24 just so happens that we received a lot of one-time federal grants through THE BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL AND ANOTHER BROWNFIELD GRANT. THOSE WERE ONE TIME, BUT WE ANTICIPATED THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUE. WE ARE CORRECTING THAT NOW AND THROUGH THIS REQUEST ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL APPREPARATION OF OUR STATE FUNDS TO MAINTAIN OPERATIONS FOR THE DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL that now and through this request asking for additional preparation our state funds to maintain operations for the Division of Environmental Response and Revitalization.
Follow-up Senator.
Thank you Mr. Chair. So that's what it's actually going to cost us is that we see are we filling in the gap from the federal dollars?
President DeSantis, Senator, that is what it's going to cost us to continue operations. Really, federal grants have remained consistent over the last several years for us. This is just to maintain operations.
Follow-up, Senator?
Now you've confused me because I thought that there was a one-time dollars in the infrastructure plan that we thought were going to be continued, and they weren't. And so that's why we need the increase in the appropriation.
President DeSantis, Senator, that's right. It was when we were budgeting in 24, in the fall of 24, we mistakenly thought that these one-time federal grants would continue into 26 and 27. Now we know that that will not materialize, and we probably honestly should have known that. And looking into 2029, we will be sure to put that into our budget plans for the next biennium.
Okay. Thanks.
Any other questions? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Hearing none, the item is approved. Thank you. Next is item 66, Racing Commission.
Mr. President, Christopher Dragone, Executive Director of the Ohio State Racing Commission.
Thank you. Senator Ingram.
Thank you, Mr. President. Just tell me why we're here.
I believe it's regarding a new contract that we had to do with a lab from out-of-state Kentucky because our lab had its accreditation suspended.
Follow-up, Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President. And so the lab that we will use is the lab that's in Kentucky. Now, we've used them before, or that was a selection that was made deliberately?
It was pretty much, Senator, it was pretty much a decision that had to be made in hours. We didn't have days or months to do a bid process. We had samples from that day, actually, that needed to be tested. There are only three labs in the country that we could have gone to. One is at Cal Davis. The other is outside Chicago. So for shipping costs alone, the Kentucky lab made the most sense. So that's why that decision was made.
Yeah, I probably could have drove it down.
Follow-up center?
Thank you, Mr. President. How long? How long?
I have no idea how long it's up to, how long it takes for the ADA lab to get its accreditation back.
Thank you. Anything further, Senator?
Any other questions? Any objections to the item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Item number 68, Department of Health.
Mr. President, members of the Controlling Board,
My name is Paul Marigas with the High Department of Health.
I also have Bobbie Crable with me. She oversees the Royal Health Program here in the state.
Thank you.
Senator Serino. Thank you, President. First of all, I would like to say that to thank members of the administration and our counterparts in the House and my colleagues in the Senate for spending the last 10 days trying to work through some issues that were related to the rural health program. I know in talking with everybody during the last 10 days, especially and previously to that, that there's a lot of concern about making sure that rural health care delivery is strengthened significantly. and that as many of these rural hospitals remain viable for a long period of time, we all share that. I know I share that objective certainly here. So the question before us was how to deal with the federal funding that was suddenly made available. Maybe not suddenly, but it was made available. It seemed like it was sudden. And so that was the reason for the discussions, negotiations, and getting additional information that went on over the last 10 days. I believe that we have arrived at, at your request here, from our discussions, an approach that makes sense, that accomplishes the goals that I think we were all looking for, and doesn't jeopardize, because of timing issues, doesn't jeopardize any of the benefits that Ohio could get from the federal government for rural health care. So I would just, if you would like to comment on the resolution that we have that has been proposed, or you don't have to, but we'd certainly love to hear your thoughts.
Through the President, to the Senator, we agree and would like to thank everyone who was involved in this process. this is an important opportunity for rural Ohioans, and we feel that we have landed in the request that we've proposed today, which is very much aligned with what we propose to our federal funder, but perhaps clarifies some points that we're of concern. So we just appreciate the support and request that we receive appropriation so that we can move forward in a timely manner and meet our reporting deadlines with the federal funder. And by the way, those are incredibly constrained. But I think it's reflective of this important work.
Follow-up, Senator? Senator?
Thank you, Mr. President. I just have one question. Are these dollars, and I know that they were appropriated in the House Bill 1, I believe it was, that they'd go specifically for rural hospitals because they were still having issues, and rural health care, period. And that's a good thing. But of course here in Ohio we have the targeted Appalachian programming that we have. Are these dollars on top of what was supposed to be used in those rural areas, or are we being combined with, say for instance, the first one on our list is for pipeline of health development? And so I want to make sure that these are all things that are already there because a lot of this we already do, right? Rural health workforce pipeline and development projects. There were very specific dollars in those Appalachian dollars that were supposed to be targeted towards some of this work. So if we're just expanding that with the federal dollars that we're getting, then that's gonna be very, very helpful.
Senator Ingram, Lisa Griffin, Ohio Department of Health. You were referring to, you said a House bill in there,
House Bill 1? Well, I said that because I don't like saying the big bill. The big bill. The big bill.
So these funds are part of that federal bill. And they will go, your question was specifically, are they going to rural hospitals? No, I know that these dollars are because they're restricted. They should be. But we already have dollars that are restricted for Appalachian that was very deliberately targeted toward our rural areas. The question becomes, are these in addition to that, or are we putting those other dollars somewhere else? Senator Ingram, these dollars are additional to what's already out there for Appalachia. The universe is 73 rural counties in Ohio. We use the definition from the Ohio State Extension Program that identifies 15 urban counties in Ohio. So 88 minus 15, that's how we landed on the 73 rural counties. so it will focus on those counties in the state serving the residents of those counties.
Thank you. Thank you.
Follow-up, Senator. Any other questions? Seeing none, are there any objections to this item? Seeing none, the item is approved.
Thank you.
Thank you. And with no further business before the board, is there a motion to adjourn the meeting?
Moved by Senator Serino.
Do I have a second?
Second by several, including Representative Stewart.
We are adjourned.